Changes to Ohio gun law unnecessary

In the days and weeks since a proposal to change Ohio's self-defense laws was offered, both sides of the debate made a strong, impassioned plea for and against the changes.

While some of the arguments against what some call the "stand your ground" provision were admittedly over the top, we believe the current law balances the rights of both gun owners and those who choose not to legally arm themselves.

Under current law, Ohioans do not need to retreat before using force if they are lawfully in their homes, vehicles or the vehicle of an immediate family member. You don't have to retreat to defend yourself, but you don't get to run outside the house

and shoot an intruder in the back either.

The change would expand the circumstances in which the use of force trumps the duty to retreat to public settings, such as stores and streets.

But we've not seen a wealth of evidence to suggest law-abiding citizens are being charged, and convicted, when they have defended themselves in public situations.

Ultimately, the issue begs the question: Is the change essential to gun rights in Ohio?

We believe it's not. The Fraternal Order of Police agrees and opposes the "stand your ground" provision for solid reasons.

There is no outcry from the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association to clarify the state's law. In fact, the group also has opposes the change, and have from the beginning.

In the end, House Bill 203 is overly broad and unnecessary, and we think the Senate should strip that part of the bill out. We believe in the rights of Ohioans to defend themselves when confronted with danger, particularly in regard to the castle doctrine, which allows homeowners to defend their homes if they fear for their safety.

But the proper balance exists in current law and should remain, unchanged.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Email this article

Changes to Ohio gun law unnecessary

In the days and weeks since a proposal to change Ohio's self-defense laws was offered, both sides of the debate made a strong, impassioned plea for and against the changes.